4 ms·
>but, from what I understand, when you have supply chain trust issues, they don't look like "oh gee someone edited a database record", they look more like https
by tnzm 5y ago
>but, from what I understand, when you have supply chain trust issues, they don't look like "oh gee someone edited a database record", they look more like https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2021-03-09/trader-bu https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2021-03-09/trader-bu...
>Normally, in such cases of non-delivery a trading house could make a claim against a cargo’s insurance policy. But Mercuria found that just one out of seven contracts used by the Turkish company to insure the cargo was real. The rest had been forged.
Can't forge a smart contract.
- mumblemumble 5y agoFair, though that would be a much more compelling observation if anyone had ever succeeded in implementing a full-fledged insurance policy in the form of a smart contract. I'm curious, for example, how you'd get an errors and omissions clause working in Etherium. Like, how would Ether arbitrate a claim against that policy? Assume, for the sake of argument, that hard AI has not been invented yet.
- tnzm 5y agoYou're correct that hard AI would be necessary for the blockchain to perform autonomous arbitration in cases where human discretion is necessary. In practice, this is solved by giving the contract the capability to query an external system (referred to as an oracle), which provides the results of the independent arbitration as an input to the contract.